InfoBritain

 

History Of British Prime Ministers

How much power does a prime minister have? In that question really lies the history of British prime ministers. Reading general histories, I gained the impression that after James II was deposed, and William III placed on the throne by Parliament in 1688, prime ministers quickly rose to power. That isn't really true. Parliament may have appointed William III in 1688, but that did not mean that the Crown was finished as a source of power. In 1688, for example, William III retained too much authority for a prime minister to emerge. But under William's successor Queen Anne, dogged as she was by poor health, two ministers, Godolphin and Harley enjoyed a leading status. It was to be Robert Walpole, the successor of Godolphin and Harley, who became Britain's first true prime minister. Nevertheless the prime minister was still not known by that name, and still remained the monarch's principle servant in Parliament, rather than an independent leader of government. Walpole might have run government, but he still had to conduct an elaborate charade which made it seem as though George II was in charge. This continued need to stay close to the monarch was due to the limited means by which an eighteenth century prime minister could hold his chaotic administrations together. There was good old fashioned bribery and corruption, but a monarch with centuries of tradition and religious symbolism around them was still a useful unifying influence. It wasn't until Lord Melbourne's nineteenth century administration that a monarch centred government began to be replaced by party based government run very much by the House of Commons. Party organisation allowed a measure of government discipline to develop, which was to lessen the need for bribery and corruption, and marginalise the monarch. In 1832 the Reform Act passed by Earl Grey's administration ended many traditional shady government practices. Then from 1868 the idea of party, which had allowed the passing of the Reform Act, permeated the country itself. Various party associations were organised all over Britain. This reflected the growing power of the electorate. The term prime minister now slowly came into use, and was first used in an official sense in 1878, when Benjamin Disraeli was called "First Lord of the Treasury and Prime Minister of her Brittanic Majesty" in the Treaty of Berlin.

Houghton Hall home of Robert Walpole.

But whether the person in charge was called first lord, or prime minister, and whether they were chosen by king, the House of Commons, or the electorate, the question remains about the reality of a prime minister's power. In some ways reading about prime ministers I began to think of Shakespeare's kings, who are presented as both powerful and helpless. As Tolstoy said in War and Peace national leaders are at the centre of such a wide web of circumstance that in many ways they have less power than the most ordinary of people. These contradictions are well illustrated by the relationship of prime ministers and monarchs. If prime ministers are supposed to have replaced monarchs as the centre of power it is interesting how many prime ministers have mimicked monarchs. Monarchs are now figureheads who make no decisions of national importance, but give a sense of unity to the often chaotic business of government. Similarly it is remarkable how many prime ministers have been selected not because of their individual brilliance but because they served as neutral compromise candidates to act mainly as a figurehead . The Earl of Wilmington, the Duke of Newcastle, the Duke of Devonshire, the Duke of Grafton, Lord North, the Duke Of Portland, Henry Addington, Lord Grenville, Spencer Perceval, Lord Melbourne, Clement Attlee, are amongst those who could be so described. Melbourne is particularly interesting. During his premiership from 1834 to 1841 he made an art of doing nothing. He really only came into his own when Queen Victoria succeeded to the throne in 1837. Melbourne tutored young Victoria in the role of constitutional queen, which is largely the art of energetically doing nothing. Between Victoria's accession to the throne and her marriage to Albert in 1840 Melbourne was a kind of king to Victoria's queen. Their close relationship only ended when Melbourne was replaced by Albert. Melbourne illustrates the fact that the role of a monarch is still required in society. While we think that the modern world has moved on from monarchy, in many ways the idea has simply been translated into new terms, with a prime minister virtually acting as a monarch. A prime minister, however, can never compete with a monarch in terms of the tradition and religions panolpy supporting their position. Prime ministers come and go, while monarchs, at least in Britain, endure.

Trafalgar Tavern Greenwich, a favourite meeting place for Gladstone and his ministers

Even individual prime ministers usually judged as personally powerful continue to illustrate the contradictions of power. William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli are not usually considered neutral characters selected because they didn't offend anyone. But in the history of their administrations they often seemed to be passengers rather than drivers. These two men, leading the Whig and Tory parities respectively, both represented governments that administered continuing reforms. Historians have argued over who was the greater reformer, whether Disraeli was the champion of change in the Reform Act of 1867, or whether Gladstone in opposition forced Disraeli's actions upon him. In many ways the case for both men is unconvincing. Governments followed votes. Governments would increase the range of people who could vote, and then hope that people enjoying their vote for the first time would vote for which ever administration had given it to them. Disraeli's biographer, R. Blake, has written: "It was like a moonlight steeple chase. In negotiating their fences few of them saw where they were going, nor much cared so long as they got there first. " (Disraeli - Ch21) Prime ministers such as David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill reveal similar contradictions. The pressures of war time meant they didn't have to worry about the tedious business of keeping party support together. Unity was provided by the pressures of war. And yet even with these apparently autocratic rulers there is a sense that they appeared powerful to answer a public need for the impression of strong reassuring leadership. Whether these men actually had more power than their peace time counterparts is debatable. Lloyd George for example made much in his memoirs of marching down to the Admiralty to demand that the obtuse people there start using convoys to protect Atlantic shipping. A.J. Marder in From the Dreadnought to Scarpa Flow suggests that this is not what actually happened, since the navy had already decided that convoys should be tried. It is perhaps more revealing that Lloyd George wanted to sack Britain's senior Army commander General Haig, but found it politically impossible to do so. As for Winston Churchill the liberal politician Jo Grimmond has written: "Some people seem to believe that we should have surrendered in the last war had it not been for Churchill. To me it is inconceivable that Britain would have folded up without a fight in 1940 whoever led us." (The Prime Ministers Vol2 P206) Tolstoy said in War and Peace that a leader becomes successful not because they change the direction of history, but because they catch the tide of the way history is going anyway. Hegel said the same thing in different words: "The great man of the age is the one who can put into words the will of the age, what its will is, and accomplish it." (Hegel Philosophy of Right P295)

In the end the nature of prime ministerial power reflects on the strange nature of power that anyone experiences in life. In the words of Forrest Gump: "I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floating around accidental-like on a breeze, but I think maybe it's both. Maybe both is happening at the same time."